Too many fans seem to be blown away

This is How Movies Should Be Made

In other words,this film is a surreal ride.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Wow...this is the first time I ever used the words schmaltz and ennui in a film, but it does fit this familiar movie. I say familiar because it's one of the most universally recognized films--being a huge hit in France as well as the US when Hollywood remade it as "Three Men and a Baby". And, if you've never seen either, they're worth seeing but far from essential viewing. Pleasant fluff is how I'd categorize them."3 Hommes et un Couffin" is a decent story that has a few rough spots. It begins with three swinging guys sharing an apartment. When Jacques is out of the country (he works for the airline), a baby is left on their doorstep with a note saying the baby is Jacques' and the mother is going to America for six months to do a modeling assignment. Obviously this woman is NOT up for the Mother of the Year award! In the interim, his two roommates run themselves ragged caring for the baby and resent Jacques. There are two serious problems, however. First, it may not be Jacques' kid. Second, there is a really dumb and unnecessary subplot involving drug dealers--and it seriously distracts from the film.Eventually, the irresponsible mother returns and by now, the three men have become attached to the baby. She takes it and the men go through a profound sense of loss and depression (hence, the ennui). And, in the end, there is a schmaltzy 'everything will work out fine' ending. Enjoyable? Yes. But the film would have benefited from several changes--dropping the drug subplot, making the mother somewhat likable or at least understandable and getting rid of all the depression near the end. However, who am I to say--the movies made a bazillion bucks!!! Just don't expect magic--just some pleasant viewing.

Cultural Awareness.The distinction between the roles that men and women play in this community conforms to many stereotypes, yet interestingly enough, captures the very essence of what can be learned when gender plays against those types. As the assuming standard goes, women, for the most part, are seen in many cultures as the nurturing figures of children; whereas men, to the contrary, are more or less the bread-winners of successful businesses. The women in this film conform to the stereotype of being overly sap-happy in regards to their interactions with children. For men, however, nurturing is not a fundamental component of their nature. Men, according to the stereotype, are rugged, adventurous, fearless and egocentric. Despite the traditional stereotype of men, this film expresses how those roles reverse. It gives new meaning to how men would instinctively respond when placed in positions of considerable moral obligation and sensitivity.As depicted in the film, three fun-loving yet humorously untrained bachelors are placed under a challenging position when an unknown baby girl swaddled in a cradle arrives unexpectedly at their door. The anxiety they express both through verbal remarks and fidgeting body language convey their conformance to the typical male response. In short, they are displayed as buffoons. They are not in touch with their child-like intuition and seem completely untrained for such a surprise. It's ironic though: on the one hand, they feel inadequate and unsure how to react; yet at the same time, their sense of moral obligation kicks in and they feel compelled to act responsibly. However, they refuse to surrender this new information to anyone (especially women). It's as if a breach in this information would be too challenging for their egos (something none of them are willing to sacrifice—at least in the beginning of the film). As they begin to perform the obligatory duties of caring for the child, their love grows immensely for her and they seem to replace the traditional role of women as caretakers.Character Arc.I would like to amalgamate the three men in this film as the main character due to their similar dysfunctions and level of competence. In the beginning of the film, they all share an unsettling sense of clumsiness and naivety in regards to their reaction to the child at their doorstep. None of them know properly how to hold a child, change diapers, buy appropriate milk formula, and put the child to sleep effectively. However, as they rise to fulfill their moral duties in taking care of the child's needs, they discover that they do possess something far beyond any talent could afford. They possess the attribute of love. This love propels them to begin making sacrifices for the child beyond their own selfish desires. One of the men cancels a special date he had planned with his girlfriend; another postpones his cartoon drawings for his business. All of these small yet profound sacrifices demonstrate the men's love they have for the child. Even though they never seem very happy when caring for its needs (this due to the strenuous task it is to raise children effectively), the rewards of knowing how much they love the child is shown when their house gets broken into by drug addicts. The house is left in ruins, yet the only concern on their minds is to secure the safety of the child. This shows their extreme dedication to human life beyond what any material possession could afford them. Through practice, patience and time, the men learn how to cope with the situation at hand. At the end of the film when the real mother comes back to claim the child, all three men go through withdrawals (a symbol of their attachment). The withdrawals are all natural results of seeing how much time, energy and love they placed into raising the child. The maxim is fulfilled in their hearts, "Love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation." They have changed in the end, becoming more refined and sensitive. They have gained a new perspective through the things in which they suffered in knowing not only what love is, but also realizing their inner-strength of knowing how much weight is possible for them to bear.

Shortly after its initial release this became - in terms of viewing figures - the most popular French film after Le Grande Vadrouille and it's not too difficult to see why. There's something for everyone to write his or her 2,500 words about in this story of three male chauvinists getting in touch with not so much their feminist side as their maternal instincts and, for good measure, a sub-plot involving drugs which disappears without trace halfway through. Serreau is clearly interested in exploring role reversal and turning the traditional role-playing tables so that by the end of the film the three male chauvinists have learned not only to care about and/or love baby Marie but are light years ahead of the natural mother in terms of how to care for her in a literal sense. The three principals, Roland Giraud (Pierre), Michel Boujenah (Michel) and Andre Dussollier (Jacques, the natural father of Marie) were all relatively unknown at the time - Dussollier was almost unrecognizable to boot - and though all three have worked steadily since only Dussollier has achieved recognition outside France, and this probably worked in the film's favour just as conversely the higher profile of the Hollywood actors in the inevitable remake worked against what was a lousy film anyway. As usual the best of the dialogue loses in translation but sufficient original flavour survives to make this a highly enjoyable romp.

A baby is left on the doorstep by its mother, three sceptical men grow to love the infant, but which is the real father?A gentle touching comedy, quieter than the American version. Worth a viewing, although because of the language barrier if for no other reason, this film will be deprived a truly mass audience.